Social Care - So nothing has changed - or rather only one small item and even that's a con.

PippaZ

Lovely to see your post Iam64, after reading about all your difficulties with the GN system.

I am sad that some on the Conservative back benches, who have spoken against what has been put forward will still vote for it. How long will they go on doing that, I wonder?

Until they decide to step off the gravy train and/or find their consciences. There's a reshuffle on the cards and I expect a few of them are thinking of their careers.

And do you know what? This will be passed in the HoC tonight because the Conservatives have such a huge majority and few of their MPs have the guts to vote against the party, even if their constituents will lose out.

This isn't just a generational issue, but a wealth issue. Pensioners with lower value homes and no savings will end up selling their homes, while the wealthier ones will lose a much lower percentage. The pensioners who are still working, most likely because they're struggling on their pensions, will have to pay the levy. Some of the working people who will have to the levy will have wealthy parents and will at least receive an inheritance. Those working people with poorer parents will still have to pay, but receive nothing and, unless there are more changes, won't receive social care either.

"Red wall voters" - please don't forget this in the next GE!

Lovely to see your post Iam64, after reading about all your difficulties with the GN system.

I am sad that some on the Conservative back benches, who have spoken against what has been put forward will still vote for it. How long will they go on doing that, I wonder?

The Carers on the ground are underpaid, undervalued and overworked! I have a feeling that any money will not be going to raise the job to a more appropriate level and recognising the skill needed to do the job well - physical, medical, interpersonal, emotional intelligence etc!!

Shocking useless ineffective duplicitous way to pretend to raise money for care costs.

It’s another way of encouraging employers to have thei workforce self employed. No national insurance, no sick or holiday pay.

Why didn’t they increase income tax and ring fence the money raised for social care.
The NI money is to be funnelled to local authorities by the nhs. The l.A’s have been undermined and underfunded and this won’t help. It’s another con trick, another way for this government to ‘prove’ l.A’s are not efficient or trustworthy
40 plus years ago social work teams had s.w assistants, home helps in house, they ran the residential care homes. It was co-ordinated and good relationships between staff groups and service users possible. None of the 15 mins to get an isolated, infirm person out of bed, then no pay for the cater as the run between appointments
Johnson said he had a care plan ready when he was elected….. pants on fire

The problem will be that a lot of people take it at face value Kim, unless and until they come up against the system for themselves.

Well...... Conservatives have certainly lost my vote over this. I fear there will be much more to come and all under the heading of the pandemic rather than incompetence.

M0nica

growstuff it will benefit very few people indeed as it only covers care in care home, not 'hotel services' bed, meals. cleaning etc. It could take 5 or 6 years before this figure is reached. As the average care home of stay of an older person is 30 months, very few will benefit and most younger people in need of long-term care - like my niece - have no assets anyway.

When you look more closely at the figures, it just gets worse.

PippaZ

growstuff

Pippa I think from her post that dragonfly realises she was "lucky" (if that's the right word).

Why do you think I thought any differently?

Sorry! I probably misread.

And the ability to carry their wealth forward to the next generation thus perpetuating the wealth divide.

I noticed that it is not care home fees that were being talked about but the "personal care" component the actual fees for food and accommodation would still need to be met. It's as usual a con this government is using meaningless words and make things sound good but basically nothing gets done.It is all just an excuse to put up national insurance contributions. There has been talk for 20+ years about merging the NHS and social care no one has even taken it forward one step.

growstuff

Pippa I think from her post that dragonfly realises she was "lucky" (if that's the right word).

Why do you think I thought any differently?

The Government intends to increase National Insurance from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent - why?

They say it is for Social Care Reform and to fix the social care crisis. If you look they have not provided any money that will end the crisis, nor will there be any to reform social care. It is not just that the money - said to be for these purposes - isn't there, my issue is that they are lying about their intention of changing that situation.

The money is to be spent on reducing waiting times in the NHS. The challenges in the NHS have been brought about by the lack of funding by this Government and the Conservative government before it under the guise of "asterity". This happened before the much called upon, Emperor's clothes of the Pandemic.

This so-called "health and social care levy" is a lie. It is a ruse to increase income tax without calling it income tax. National Insurance has never paid for the NHS and now it will not pay for a National Care Service either.

This is a slippery government run by a rascal. Whether you mind your parents' homes being sold for their care is neither here nor there. The fact is that a government, that tells us it is committed to levelling up, has just set up a tax to take the most off those with the least - those working people who are losing the £10 uplift from Universal Credit, and leave those paying the least with investments worth the most.

growstuff it will benefit very few people indeed as it only covers care in care home, not 'hotel services' bed, meals. cleaning etc. It could take 5 or 6 years before this figure is reached. As the average care home of stay of an older person is 30 months, very few will benefit and most younger people in need of long-term care - like my niece - have no assets anyway.

Pippa I think from her post that dragonfly realises she was "lucky" (if that's the right word).

Don't forget that about half of adult social care is spent on younger adults with disabilities. It's local councils who hold the budgets, not the government. Local councils have been squeezed since 2010 and only half of people who apply for social care receive any support. There was nothing in yesterday's announcement about fixing the system for them and most of the money is going to the NHS (not social care) for the next three years.

The only group of people who might potentially benefit are the people who inherit estates worth over £86,000. Hopefully, people will realise what it's all been about. It's not about "sorting" social care - it's about preserving inheritances for those with the most, paid for by those with the least.

You were lucky to be able to both find and afford homes for them dragonfly.

I imagine none of us would want to deprive our parents of their own money and would be happy to see it used for their care. However, it has got more and more difficult for people to even find somewhere their loved one can live and be cared for. With no change to the system I cannot see that improving. Perhaps you can see something in this "plan" that Johnson promised that will change this?

Both my parents had to go into a care home and we all accepted that the house had to be sold to pay for it. It did mean that we could choose the home and not have to adhere to Social Services choosing it.

If there was no chance of them returning to their home I don't see the problem with selling it.
I found it much easier clearing my parents house when they were still alive than I would have if they were dead.